Research Report & Evaluation:

An investigation in to the
privacy constraints for a
journalist and how effective
are they?
UNIT 3: RESEARCH

An investigation in to the privacy constraints for a journalist and how effective are they?

UNIT 3: RESEARCH

At the start of the project I decided to find out what the privacy constraints for a journalist were.
Privacy can be considered both a legal and an ethical problem. I chose this topic because I intend to
pursue a career in this industry so I think it will be beneficial to know some of the precautions I
should/will have to consider. I decided to do both secondary and primary research in order to be able
to cross reference the information to find some similarities and differences. As a result I realised that
some of my own personal opinions changed. This was mainly through my findings in both my focus
group and interviews in comparison to my content analysis and public survey.

Why did I choose the methods I chose ?

Research Method

Reason

PR: Interview

To gather in depth details from industry professionals in order to compare it with the secondary
research (Acts/YouTube clips) Quantitative And Qualitative Data was collected

PR: Focus Group

To try and explore other areas that could come about and see if people will say more as it's speaking
and not writing. Both Quantitative And Qualitative Data was collected

PR: Public Survey

To get a range of answers from different ages and not just people I know in order to get different
perspectives. Qualitative Data was collected

SR: Online
(Newspapers/YouTube
Videos)
SR: Gagging orders

To gather videos and sources about the privacy constraints in the media
Qualitative Data was collected

SR: Books/ Google
Scholar

To gather information about the Privacy laws
Qualitative Data was collected

To see examples of how celebrities privacy has been handled Qualitative Data was collected

I intend to find out if the laws that journalists consider are those of which they should, in relation to
the documents and scholars I have researched and also if these are the issues that the public is most
concerned about. The rest of this presentation will show you my findings from this research.

KEY:

PR: Primary research
SR: Secondary research


RESULTS

I noticed that throughout all my primary research findings the majority of people were females who
decided to take part.

FOCUS GROUP:
This was also similar to answers that I received
from the focus group with only 20% of the
participants being male.

INTERVIEW:
The interview respondents were 100% female.

PUBLIC SURVEY:
If you look at the chart on the left you can see that
66.67% of the respondents to the public survey
were female.
The male to female response rate wasn’t on purpose however this could suggest many things, such as
different genders having different opinions. However this was only accidental, there were equal
opportunities for males and females to take part.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

Taking into account the different primary research methods I was considering, I decided to repeat some
of the questions I was using as I felt this would be good to see how different professions, knowledge
and experiences could alter the type of responses I received. Therefore this would be a good way to
compare results.

COMPARING: PUBLIC SURVEY & FOCUS GROUP
Imagine a story in the newspaper was published about you in a negative light. Please provide a short
description about what your feelings towards this would be?

PUBLIC SURVEY:
Many of those who
responded said they
would be either angry
or upset. A lot thought
they would be
embarrassed and some
thought about trying
to sue them and being
angry at the reporter.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

However one person
didn’t think they
would react like this
and instead looked at
it with a more mature
approach. Someone
also said that they
would try to stand up
for themselves.


RESULTS


FOCUS GROUP:
The answers to this question was somewhat similar to those from the public survey. At first the girls
were dominating their opinion and saying that they would feel upset in the same way that people in the
public survey said that too. One response was also that they would feel annoyed and another said it
depended on how negative it actually is and how close it is to their emotions as this could make it
worse. A male then voiced his opinion which was that this can give you a chance to prove your self,
and said that this negative publicity can be used to your own advantage. He reminded us about the tune
‘sticks and stones may break your bones..’ and said ‘everyone's human nobody is perfect’. This made
me even change my own personal view. Because at first I thought I would be depressed and
embarrassed when actually what he is saying is valid. He also flagged up the point which others didn’t,
is that we do have the power to report this, even though it may be expensive we do still have the
opportunity. Likewise to my experience, other participants who previously thought they would be
upset started to think similar views to this respondent. Others suggested similar stuff which can be
found on the overleaf.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS


CONTINUED:
The quotes in the red are some of what the respondents said. At the end those who at first thought they
would be upset changed their view and looked at it from a different angle. I thought it was a good
point suggested about how you can use this fame to turn it around and instead refer people to your
success. To overcome this situation it was about ‘not letting it get to you’. Another respondent who
agreed also stressed the fact that once your name is in the media you can’t get it back out. This is
absolutely right, especially with photos whether it’s ones that we have posted up of ourselves or one
that someone else as. It was also highlighted that this could affect your job as if your name has been
publicised negatively, employers wont necessary want to employ you. Plus, it puts a risk at people
trying to mimic you on social networking sites.
Having both these questions repeated was useful as it meant that I got peoples instant thoughts from
the public survey and then from the focus group I got more detailed responses, which actually enabled
people to change their minds when they had heard other peoples viewpoints.
After doing my focus group I felt that males viewpoints were different from females. I could read into
this more but my sample isn’t big enough for this type of judgement to be made.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

Imagine a story in the newspaper was published about you in a positive light. Please provide a short

PUBLIC SURVEY:

Although you cannot
see the entire 21
responses from the
public survey, most
suggested they would
respond in a positive
way too by saying
they would feel
‘happy’ and ‘pleased’.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

Saying that, some
people said that they
would still be
apprehensive about
their story being
published. Others also
said that it ‘depended
on what they were
being praised on’.


RESULTS


FOCUS GROUP:
With some similarities to the responses from the public survey, what I gathered is that people would
rather their name be out in a negative light as a oppose to positive. It’s weird to think that really. It’s
weird to think that someone would prefer ‘XYZ is the number one school bully’ instead of ‘XYZ is a
star pupil’. But having a focus group enabled me to understand why people felt this and get detailed
responses. Respondents said being in the positive light would mean they would have to try and
maintain the good image, as people would almost be waiting for them to do something bad. However
someone went against this and said that they’d rather be in a positive light, because they don’t like the
idea of being in a bad light and wouldn’t want ‘everyone talking about [them] if it was negative’. The
preference to being in a negative light was voiced again. Someone said that being in a negative light
provides you with the opportunity to prove yourself and change it around, whereas being in the positive
light is just having people waiting for you to slip up. I felt that in the focus group in comparison to the
public surveys, the views altered. In the public surveys even the people who were still anxious about
the idea, suggested they would be happy about being publicised for something good.

T.B.C
PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS


CONTINUED:
Whereas in the focus group everyone who voiced their opinion, other than one, felt that this wouldn’t
be such a good idea. Some of the people who took part in the public survey was also used in the focus
group, however they hadn't before stressed these opinions. Having a focus groups means that it will
allow people to question and explore their own views as well as consider other peoples ideas too. I
think that perhaps the reason for this change is because of the environment that they were in. In the
focus group, the room was quiet and there was no distractions whereas when people were taking part in
the public surveys I couldn’t control the surroundings they were in or their concentration levels.
One could argue that peoples opinions changed based on the fact that boys were there and the girls
were trying to impress them. As this could have led to their opinions just bouncing off what ever the
boys said. Another could argue that because there were dominant voices and opinions other people
simply fed of that. At the end of doing both the focus group and the public survey I realised that
perhaps if I had put the ‘positive’ question first as oppose to the ‘negative' that the results may have
altered.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

What is your opinion on the lives of celebrities being invaded by the press ?

PUBLIC SURVEY:
Similar to the question about
Xfactor contestants,
respondents felt that it was
unfair when the press invade
celebrities privacy and
highlighted the fact that
there is a limit. Some
thought that taking pictures
of people running to their
local shops
to buy bread could be
considered unfair, but
when your in the limelight
it’s different because readers
want to know about
celebrities.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

A strong argument

Readers want to see celebs in
a bad light because it makes
them feel better about their
own lives and likewise to a
response, the gossip
magazines wouldn’t sell
much if they didn’t do this.
However I do agree with the
comment that it is unfair,
because ‘they are normal
people too’. Can you argue
that they signed up for it, as
they were aware of the
lifestyle of a celebrity before
they entered it? One needs to
consider, that there are people
who had no choice and were
born into the families and
didn’t ask to be famous.


RESULTS


FOCUS GROUP:
When I asked this question to the group I used the example of an Xfactor contestant whose mum had been
in the newspaper for aggressive behaviour and being assigned a police caution. The first respondent said
that they thought it was wrong to focus on one person and that family shouldn’t be involved with it because
it means the press are hurting lives of people who didn’t sign up to this lifestyle. Whereas others argued that
it isn't wrong if they aren't releasing personal information, such as their middle name or address. This is
almost a replica of a response given in the Public Survey. Another person argued that whether these
contestants and celebrities are aware of it, their family will be affected by them being in the limelight and
will too get some attention. Personally, I don’t agree with this comment as I feel that there are celebrities
whose family lives aren't invaded such as Rita Ora. If you go onto her mums twitter account, there is no
recognition that she is the mum of teenage pop sensation. In fact I spoke to her mum and she said that she
always encourages Rita Ora to never speak of her.
During the focus group I think at times I came across quite biased as oppose to being objective. I don’t think
this was good in this instance, as I was trying to conduct research to near professional standards. Saying
that, I don’t feel that it affected the results as most of the respondents views were strong and were against
mine.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS


CONTINUED:
Other people flagged up the point that this is just ‘someone's job’. They said that a ticket warden will
get lots of people who ‘complain and go crazy’ but this is part of their job. I agree with this comment
and although personally I think that it's unfair when celebrities lives are invaded, I understand that they
put themselves in the limelight. When the paparazzi take photographs they are simply doing their job
as their goal is to make money.
I think it was good that I decided to combine both methods together and repeat some of the questions
as instead of just getting people responding and saying ‘i feel bad for them’, I gathered in depth
answers that explained why and backed up their points with an argument.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

RESULTS


COMPARING: PUBLIC SURVEY & FOCUS GROUP & INTERVIEW
Please read the following statement and select your answer below. It is ok for journalists to discuss
information about peoples families/personal life whether they are involved in the case/situation/story or
not?

PUBLIC SURVEY:
9.5% of the respondents felt
that this was ok and ‘agreed’
with the statement. 70%
didn’t and either ‘disagreed’
or ‘strongly disagreed’.
And 19% selected neither. I
would assume that the 19%
who chose neither possibly
didn’t understand the
question and maybe I
should have been clearer. As
in the focus group when I
asked this question I was
required to explain it in
more detail.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

I had expected most people to
either ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly
disagree’, as in the previous
question about how they
would feel with information
posted in a negative light or
positive light lots of people
had mix opinions. I found it
interesting how no one
strongly agreed with the
statement. And even though a
high number of people didn’t
agree with the statement I still
think the sample was too small
to make a judgement.


RESULTS

not?

FOCUS GROUP:
Please refer to slide 11 For results

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

RESULTS
not?

INTERVIEW:
The first interviewee (representative of The Voice
newspaper) stressed the idea that it is not ok, so in other
words she ‘disagrees’ with the statement and linked back to
her industry in reference to working in news and said in
that sector they don’t talk about speculation. She also
spoke about the fact that everyone deserves a right to
privacy, which linked to her later response in question 8. in
regards to the main laws, she has to consider when writing
an article. The second interviewee (representative of
Croydon Advertiser) discussed a perspective different from
the first answer. She gave an example of where it would be
necessary, but also said that it would depend on the story.
She also highlighted an error in the question. I felt that this
was useful as it made me consider how I phrase the
questions properly for future surveys or similar projects.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

not?

CONTINUED:
I found it interesting to be able to look at all the different answers from the different types of respondents. The
Public Survey showed that most people didn’t agree with the idea, that it was ok to publish information about
peoples families lives, as the percentage of disagree to agree was vast. However, I think it's important to take
into account the fact that the people who took part may have just being trying to get through it as quickly as
possible as I wasn’t there to see what they were doing. So I am not sure how reliable this data would be as I
feel it is quite split. Whereas in the focus group it started off with a comment from someone not agreeing that
it was ok for this to happen and describing this as unfair and then later coming to an understanding that
people are doing simply doing their jobs and families can be brought into the limelight due to one person
becoming famous. The interview with the two industry professionals also fitted in with the rest of the results.
One of the interviews said ‘everyone has a right to privacy’ which corresponds with the focus group when
someone said ‘it is unfair, because they're normal people too’. In the same way that the second interviewee
said ‘it’s very much a story by story 'and in the focus group someone said ‘it depends’. In addition to the fact
that, in the public survey 19% neither agreed or disagreed. The fact that the question was repeated amongst
the different primary research methods helped to make my research stronger as it means that I can evaluate
and look at trends.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

journalists/reporters use shows such as Xfactor as an opportunity to exploit peoples personal life. For
example Tamera was exposed for tweeting about smoking marijuana. Do you feel this is unfair or are the
public entitled to know about the personal lives of people they are voting for?

PUBLIC SURVEY:
The responses varied
for this question and I
think you can expect
that, as the question
provides you with both
arguments already. A
lot of peoples answers
represented both sides
to the arguments. Some
people said that we
deserved to know and
one person even quoted
the question.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

A respondent highlighted
the idea that if the
information is ‘bias’ in
that the press are being
both ‘manipulative’ and
‘influential’ then this
information being
released is unfair.
Something that I noticed
which was similar to the
focus group was that
people made the point
and suggestions to imply
that putting yourself in
the media is practically
asking for attention.


RESULTS


FOCUS GROUP:
The main concept taken from the focus group was the fact that the information was sourced online so
it cannot be unfair. Respondents said a user has responsibility for their account, it's their responsibility
to monitor who's following them. The same person also said that generally you need to be cautious
about your tweets. This was compared to coach switching how you will speak to your pastor in one
way, your mum in another and your friends in another. This is the same way that it was suggested we
use Twitter. I found it interesting that someone compared twitter users to mini journalists, by saying
that having a Twitter account means that we can chose what to put out there at any given time.
Something I learned from the focus group was the fact that there is analytic software's and they have a
public service which allows them to retrieve twitter conversations and retweets, whether they have
been deleted or not. This was an example of a question where I had my own views, which then
changed after conducting my research as it is true that ‘once it is online nothing is private’ and I agree
that ‘you can't complain because you shouldn’t have tweeted it if you didn’t want nobody to see it’.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS


INTERVIEW:

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

Similar to the focus group,
the first interviewee spoke
about the fact that creating a
story on a celebrity will
‘produce massive interest
from readers/viewers’. She
spoke about the fact that
because it was on twitter it
wasn’t necessarily
exploiting her because she
decided to put the
information on this site
which is open to billions of
users the journalist simply
highlighted what she
tweeted for everyone to see.

RESULTS



INTERVIEW:
2nd

This
respondent highlighted a
valid point that wasn’t discussed
before. She said that now Tamera
is becoming a role model for
young girls, if ‘she's promoting
drug use’ on her twitter account
which is public to her fan base,
then this needs to be ‘addressed’.
This is a significant point. She did
say though that sometimes the
media can go too far into peoples
lives and there is a need for a
‘balance’, however she noted that
in this example the press aren't
exploiting her life as it was a
tweet and tweets are public.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

All methods spoke about the fact
that they are in the public eye so
they should expect to be spoken
about constantly so therefore it's
not unfair. One person actually
spoke about this being the
downside to the life of a celebrity
and that every job has a downside
and this is theirs and they need to
get used to it, ‘it's not unfair’. In
all methods the point was also
flagged up that this is supposed to
be considered in the publics
interest and that people love to
read gossip magazines so the
press need to release information
like this.


RESULTS

Both of the interviewees had similar responses, this could be linked to the fact their job roles are both
similar with one being a Senior reporter and one being an Editor. Similar to the public survey they both
stressed the fact that this is in the publics interest. Whereas the focus group went on to a slightly
different tangent and instead focused on the reality of being exploited via twitter as oppose to her
personal information being exposed. Although some people in the focus group felt it was unfair, most
of the respondents comments suggested and expressed feelings to suggest otherwise. Overall the
majority of people who answered this question felt that it wasn’t unfair because the press and paparazzi
are simply doing their job and we as the public deserve to know what type of role model status she
really is living up to.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

COMPARING: FOCUS GROUP & INTERVIEW & CONTENT ANALYSIS
Theme: When writing an article what information do you have to consider in terms of the privacy of the
people involved? B. What ethical and legal constraints do you have to regularly consider ?

FOCUS GROUP
In the beginning of the focus group I asked respondents ‘what type of privacy issues [they were]
aware of in the media’ . No one really said anything, they were all quite quiet and only a few voices
were heard. One respondent said ‘injunction’ and another vaguely spoke about the invasion of privacy
issues. From this I assumed that people were rather quiet because of the fact the focus group had just
started and it was the first question so they didn’t know what to expect. I also thought that perhaps this
age group just had a lack of knowledge on this subject area. I think at this point I should have
demonstrated better leadership skills in order to of led the focus group more professionally. I think at
this point I should have educated the respondents on some of the privacy laws as oppose to just
moving on to the next question.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS


INTERVIEW

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

The interview results as you would imagine were different from the
focus group in that it was more precise and detailed. The question
was slightly different though in order to accommodate to the
different levels of experience in the field, as well as expected
knowledge and so forth. The first respondent spoke about ensuring
something is absolutely true and the idea that if a journalist has any
doubt about the truth of an article then it can’t be published. She
also spoke about how she prefers to protect the privacy of
someone's address but said that local newspapers tend to expose
this sort of information. She said if there is any doubt then the work
can be checked over with a legal department that she has in her
office. The second interviewee said that she abides by the PCC
codes and stated that ‘Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, provides a ‘right to respect for private and family
life’. She also spoke about how she has to weigh out the public
interest in publishing against someone's right to privacy. She
stressed that it was vital for a reporter to take an exam in media law.


RESULTS


CONTENT ANALYSIS

As part of the research process into privacy constraints for a journalist I also thought it would be useful to look at it
from the perspective of a paparazzi or photojournalist too. I studied the photographs attached to a gagging order case
with Ryan Giggs and studied the way in which all participants in the situation are portrayed. If you look at the image
on the left you can see how Imogen (left side) is wearing glasses as a sort of barrier between her and the world. This I
assume is due to the amount of press and publications who are getting involved with her personal life as a result as
being a part of the cheating scandal. The overall impression I got about the ethical and legal constraints that regularly
need to be considered is accuracy and the risk of breaching any laws, specifically privacy.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

COMPARING: FOCUS GROUP, INTERVIEW & SECONDARY RESEARCH
Theme: Public Interest

FOCUS GROUP
The response that I received from this was low, however one person said that if the truth has been
exaggerated, or when it begins to become exaggerated then this would be when the line needs to be
drawn because that is ‘mean’ and ‘spiteful’. Someone else suggested that it is hard to define public
interest because just because something doesn’t necessarily have interest to you, it may have interest to
someone else. I think both points are valid, because sometimes the press invades peoples privacy so
much and it's not really needed for a story and someone may argue that’s not public interest. However, if
there is something about Margaret Thatcher in the newspaper and someone is really into politics, to that
person they would be interested in knowing every gritty and nitty bit of information, some of which I
may not see of any interest.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS


INTERVIEW
I thought it would be interesting and useful to see the comparisons with this question in particular, with
how the industry people define the public interest and how they know when to not exaggerate a topic.
The first interviewee said that public interest is not gossip and is something that is ‘central to policy
debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government or big institutions’. An example of this I
would assume could be the Tesco Horse Meat Scandal, they could have kept the brand name private
but they never as it is in the publics interests as it is a part of a big ‘institution.' This corresponds with
the comment and example I used on the previous slide with the Margaret Thatcher example. The
second interview referred back to the PCCs definition and said that defining the public interest
includes but is not restricted to ‘detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety. Protecting public
health and safety and preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an
individual or organisation.’ The PCC also defines public interest by stating that ‘there is public interest
in freedom of expression itself.’

KEY:
PRIMARY
RESEARCH

SECONDARY
RESEARCH

PPC: PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

RESULTS



SECONDARY RESEARCH
This source is a talk from a lawyer from the Wiggin Media Law and is titled Freedom of expression vs
the right to privacy. This was led by Adrienne who educates the listeners on the challenging media
world that we are now living in. She speaks about the Human Rights Act and how it treats the idea of
freedom of expression as a positive act in the media. This links to the PCC’s public interest definition
point 2. She talks about how we have to question the value of the public receiving the information
‘subject to the case’ and whether or not the information is simply subjective towards the private life of
a celebrity. She also questioned the listeners as to which members of society are targets, and then gives
examples of different privacy issues in regards to sports heroes and politicians. She spoke about being
a lawyer and that she has to consider evaluation and prioritising categories of speech in order to respect
individuals personal and family life. This includes their dignity and right to develop relationships
without interference. She said that this led to the development of the privacy law which led to new
media laws which has now led to super injunctions.
The way in which all these research methods results linked together was that the focus group
highlighted the idea that it is hard to define public interest because different people can be interested in
different things. The focus group also spoke about the fact that there is a line before you start
exaggerating the truth and being spiteful. This was similar to the interview where respondents spoke
about the PCC and that there is public interest in freedom of expression itself.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

SECONDARY
RESEARCH

RESULTS



CONTINUED
This links to the secondary research extract which is from a lawyers perspective, educating the listener
on what needs to be considered in terms of freedom of speech and the right to privacy. What was
different, was that the video spoke about information being simply subjective towards the private life of
a celebrity as a negative which goes against slide 21, which argues that ‘the press and paparazzi are
simply doing their job’. This too goes against Adrienne's comment in the video speaking about
respecting individuals personal and family life.
However now looking back I think I should have got in touch with someone who actually works for a
gossip magazine, as the two people I interviewed, are from the typical news style backgrounds where
they tend to deal with facts. What I think would have been good to also compare is if their definitions
work even in magazine style writing where there are lots of gossip columns that you will often find in
magazines such as ‘Star’ and ‘OK! Magazine’.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

SECONDARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

COMPARING: PUBLIC SURVEY, INTERVIEW & SECONDARY RESEARCH
Theme: Gagging Orders

PUBLIC SURVEY

There was only a 10% difference between the amount of respondents who felt that gagging orders
should be banned and gagging orders shouldn’t be. Personally for myself I didn’t know what that was
until I became a media a student at college which is why the responses may have come outs so random.
I feel that this question would have retrieved more accurate responses if I had begun by stating what a
gagging order was instead of putting the definition in brackets. Reason being, really there is no reason
for 40% of the respondents to not know what a gagging order is when I explained it in the question.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

COMPARING: PUBLIC SURVEY, INTERVIEW &SECONDARY RESEARCH

INTERVIEW

There first interviewee thought that gagging orders were ineffective and that they should be banned. The
other respondent too felt they should be banned, however she found it very effective. She felt that there
were other alternative methods that were successful enough to deal with protecting people. These results
are somewhat similar to the public survey as the opinions are split between whether people think
gagging orders are worthwhile or not. However, this is only a small sample so it doesn’t mean that the
majority of people will agree.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH



SECONDARY RESEARCH
Please see examples below

PRIMARY
RESEARCH

RESULTS


RESULTS


SECONDARY RESEARCH
Other than just listening to what people thought about gagging orders, I also done some content
analysis and secondary research to look into the cases, about what reporters thought about gagging
orders that had been in place. The main example in which I focused on was the Ryan Giggs case. In
this example he put forward a super injunction that ended up being considered pointless, as his name
went viral over twitter so everyone was able to identify him. The previous page showed examples of
what the BBC and The Guardian had to say. I looked at these examples (the full reports) in order to
come to a decision on how effective gagging orders are, which is one of the sub questions.
In some instances I think that gagging orders are effective because it helps peoples restrain from the
public knowing all of their private life. And sometimes they can be ineffective depending on their use.
For example sometimes companies take out gagging orders on employees who have been made
redundant to restrict them from talking about the business and the reason why they have been
dismissed. Sometimes celebrities like Ryan Giggs use them and like the 30% of the focus group who
agreed that gagging orders should be banned, they can be ineffective. Ryan Giggs tried to have a super
injunction so that his fans and other members of the public wouldn’t know that it was he who had an
affair.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS


CONTINUED
Unfortunately for him, thousands of Twitter followers found out and started discussing the affair
online. He went viral and then everyone knew and publications couldn’t understand why they still
wasn’t allowed to publish it when everybody knew who it was. His lawyer couldn’t figure out a way to
control the masses of tweets that were being released. As the screen grabs from The Guardian and the
BBC explained ’75,00 people’ named him on twitter so it would be ‘impracticable to imprison them
all’. This example of a gagging order/super injunction, brought great risk to the power of the Privacy
Acts, as once it is out on twitter, which is supposed to be a place where you can have ‘freedom of
speech’ it can easily become viral: the internet is pretty much uncontrollable. One person described the
situation on twitter as not being ‘sustainable’. I found it bizarre that the second interviewee said that
gagging orders are effective however she feels they should be banned. I would have liked to of asked
her to explain this in more detail. As a result I would conclude by suggesting that perhaps conducting
an interview by email can be quite restricted as people are less inclined to put in lots of detail.

PRIMARY
RESEARCH


RESULTS

EVALUATION
The aim of my project was to find out ‘what are the privacy constraints for a Journalist and how
effective are they’? I also decided to take a look at examples of gagging orders and assess how
effective they are, as well as look at what ‘regular’ people consider to be an issue with privacy settings
and link this back to the main question. I felt that this research project was one of the most beneficial
units I have taken so far on this course. I have learned so much new skills, some in relation to
becoming a journalist, such as understanding the opportunities and limitations of a gagging order and
also discovering sites such as google scholar, which will be useful in similar tasks and even in my
career. I liked the idea of having the opportunity to focus and study something based on my career path
and I can honestly say I enjoyed every minute of it.

I started with looking into secondary research and listing a range of sources that I could later use to
compare to my primary research in order to gather results. I think it was good that I began with
secondary research as oppose to primary as it gave me something to compare to. Also, it gave me an
opportunity to have more time to think about the type of sub questions I can find out and the most
successful way to go about it. Another way in which it was beneficial was that it allowed me to learn
more about the topic. I used trusted sites such as OFCOM and also looked into reliable documents such
as Privacy Acts. Other methods I used included YouTube videos and looking at examples of gagging
orders. I aimed to get an equal amount of examples on all the different subject areas I wanted to focus
on, in order to try and remain equal and fair at all times. In terms of choosing my secondary sources I
tried to use a more methodical process as oppose to randomly finding them. I aimed to get more than
the suggested amount, just to make sure that I wasn’t going to be cut short and so that I always had
plenty. I think that it was vital that I didn’t solely rely on using quantitative data when collecting
results. For example, instead of simply counting the amount of gagging orders in the past year I
gathered some qualitative data by researching and coming to terms with why they were put in place
and measuring the effectiveness.


RESULTS

CONTINUED
This I found to be quite conclusive nearer the end of the project. I tried to make sure that most of the
videos, and websites I sourced were reliable. I done this by using sites I trusted such as the BBC and
The Guardian as oppose to The Daily Mail which is quite a biased newspaper. I also looked at who the
speakers were in the videos in hope of them not just being random people from the public speaking, but
industry professionals. The reason why I done this was because I wanted to ensure I had lots of
academic sources to add to the reliability of the data being collected. Not only does assessing the writer
or publication help in considering the reliability but also checking the date. For things such as Privacy
Acts the old date won’t be an issue, but sometimes documents can become outdated and the
information won’t be of use.

After completing both the primary and secondary research I decided that the main privacy constraints
for a journalist is breaching the line of public interest, breaking gagging orders and sticking as close to
the truth as much as possible. However I feel that the importance of sticking as close to the truth as
possible, sometimes alters depending on whether they are representing newspapers such as South
London Press or magazines like Star. As with gossip columns reporters tend to over exaggerate the
truth and be quite subjective. However I never actually researched magazine articles, so I cannot be
certain that this statement is 100% accurate. I also learned from my interviews that it is vital for a
journalist to ensure that they stick within the guidelines written out by the PCC, in order to avoid
getting complaints. In the same way that they should aim to be as truthful and non-bias, to reduce the
risk of being sued for false information. In terms of planning for my Journalist career, I think one of the
biggest hurdles will be trying to identify the line of where public interest stands. This was something
that I felt remained inconclusive, as everyone’s opinions are different. Even if some things are about
politics like the PCC refers to as being acceptable (in terms of public interest) someone else may not
agree. More so, in source 4 (secondary research) the media lawyer also stressed the difficulty of being
able to come to a judgement of what is breeching someone’s privacy and what is in the public’s
interest.


RESULTS

CONTINUED
I found that the issue that ‘regular’ people had with their privacy settings was that they didn’t like the
idea of people being able to hack into their accounts as I found this out in the focus group (10 minute
34 seconds). Some of my findings also included the fact that many people wouldn’t want to be
publicised in a newspaper whether it’s for good things or bad things. The reason being is they don’t
like the idea of people being able to make them appear in a way that may not be true. I got the
impression that people looked at being in the public’s eye as being vulnerable. This was because a lot
of people in the focus group and public survey were concerned about how people got their information
and what information it was. Both with their own lives and celebrities lives they thought it would be a
problem if personal information such as full name and address was given out, however didn’t find
issues with writing a story without permission necessarily breaching someone’s privacy rights.
When looking closely to the effectiveness In terms of gagging orders, I came to a decision that I too
agree that they should be banned. This was reinforced after I had looked into the Ryan Giggs case. I
didn’t quite manage to understand how he could be angry at regular people for talking about him over
twitter when he chose to live that lifestyle. If he wasn’t such a well-known football player no one
would have known about the case, nor would they have cared. Celebrities in particular like to use
gagging orders as an escape route for when they mess up. As a celebrity I feel they need to be able to
do with the lows that come with the job, I don’t think it’s fair that because they can afford to they can
take out super injunctions.
Now I’ve finished this project I have discovered more questions that need to be answered. I would love
the opportunity to ask celebrities if they knew that how their life would be, in terms of both highs and
lows, in the same way that respondents in my focus group assumed they already would, prior to fame. I
would also repeat some of the same methods but with clearer questions and use a bigger sample so that
I could know how accurate and reliable my results really were.


RESULTS

CONTINUED
Although I gathered results and came to conclusions I think some of the points I came across are weak
because the sample is too small. I think the way in which that I planned out my work in order to be able
to cross reference the results at the end was successful. I created a detailed and clear slideshow with
illustrated results. I gathered demographics, although I didn’t use this greatly in my report and both
qualitative and quantitative data in order to be able to compare results effectively and in multiple ways.
I think that none of my research methods would have been strong enough to stand alone, however as a
collective they produce some interesting trends and the analysis in my reports helps you to spot the
trends. Though, I do think that in my report I focused too much on primary research as oppose to
linking back to some of the strong findings I got in my secondary research.
When listening back to my work I noticed that in the focus group I came across slightly bias. This was
something that I strongly picked up on as I was suggesting viewpoints that were of my own. Saying
that I don’t think this affected the results, I think this may have helped it as instead I got stronger
results that actually lead me to changing my own views. Nevertheless, in the future I will refrain from
doing this in similar tasks. All in all, I think I collated good research on the privacy constraints for a
journalist.


RESULTS

EVALUATION of RESEARCH METHODS
Research Method

Evaluation

PR: Interview

This method was good in that I got in depth industry professional answers that were
useful in cross referencing my work and getting a better understanding about the
constraints of a journalist. However, in future task similar to this I would carry out the
interview face to face as I feel it enables you to lead on to other areas and possibly find
out more than you expected where as an email restricts you from doing this effectively.
The focus group was successful in that a range of views and opinions were collected and
peoples opinions including mine even changed. In the future I would ensure that I am not
bias and that I don’t suggest any of my own opinions. I would also try to ensure that the
questions were more clear and precise. The focus group lasted around 15 minutes , this is
good because any longer could have become tiresome for the audience.
The public survey worked well and in the end I collected quite a view responses , even
though I had hoped to get more. An issue I found with this method is that when you post
it online you get span responses, and people respond not for the right reasons. I
distributed the surveys via online media platforms as well as contacting people directly
when I felt I wasn’t picking up enough responses. This was good as it meant I got
responses not only from people I knew.
The newspapers and YouTube clips I found interesting as it was easy to highlight and
listen to the information that was necessary in terms of creating a report and coming to a
conclusion. This information was also easily accessible.
Looking at gagging orders I felt helped a lot as I learned more about what the process
actually involves and also got an insight into some cases that I hadn't heard about. I think
that it would have possibly have been better if I had referred to more than one example
of a gagging order though throughout the report.
When choosing secondary research some of the books I came across I actually felt would
be quite useful to read in terms of career prospects. Saying that, I didn’t actually use any
of them in terms of finding a conclusion. I think my report would have been stronger if I
had read more into the books and google scholar pages and used some of the
information.

PR: Focus Group

PR: Public Survey

SR: Online
(Newspapers/YouTube
Videos)
SR: Gagging orders

SR: Books/ Google
Scholar


References: Slide 3 – Focus group 0 minutes 1 second and onwards
References: Slide 3 – Interview (1&1) Question 2,
References: Slide 3 –Public Survey Question 1
References: Slide 4 - Public Survey Question 3.
References: Slide 5 – Focus group 12 minutes 50 seconds and onwards
References: Slide 13 – Public Survey Question 7
References: Slide 15 – Interview (1&2) Question 4
References: Slide 19 – Interview (1) Question 5
References: Slide 10 – Interview (2) Question 5
References: Slide 26 – Interview (1&2) Question 9
References: Slide 27 – Secondary Research Source 4
References: Slide 29 – Public Survey Question 9
References: Slide 31 – Secondary Research Source 10 and 14

REFERENCES

Thank you for listening

UNIT 3: RESEARCH

Researched and recorded by

Roshan Roberts - Crooks

Research Report & Evaluation:

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Research Report & Evaluation:

Similar to Research Report & Evaluation: (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Research Report & Evaluation:

Editor's Notes